Security Screeners at Kane County Courthouse Make Drug Arrest

An Aurora man entering the Kane County Courthouse in St. Charles set off the metal detector. Deputies asked him to empty his pockets and when he did so he placed a small plastic bag or what appeared to be cocaine in the tray. He was arrested by Kane County Deputies and charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance.  The incident happened last week at around 8:30 a.m. This is a busy time at the courthouse when several hundred people are lining up to enter the courthouse. The screening is similar to the type of screening you would expect at an airport. You must pass through a metal detector and are required to empty your pockets before going through security.  

This individual, who will remain unnamed in this article, will receive the Moron of the Week Award.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Rules On GPS Tracking Case

Last week the United States Supreme Court ruled on a case that we have been following closely.  The case involves Antoine Jones, a Washington, D.C. nightclub owner.  Washington police placed a GPS tracking device on his vehicle, without a warrant.  They followed him around for about a month and linked him to a known drug stash house.  He was eventually arrested and charged with numerous drug offenses.  He was eventually convicted of distributing cocaine and was sentenced to life in prison.  The question in this case became whether police need to obtain a warrant before placing a GPS device on someone's vehicle?  On August 27, 2010, we reported about a decision out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that law enforcement authorities can place a GPS tracking device on a suspect's vehicle without the need to obtain a warrant.  On August 6, 2010, we reported that the Washington, D.C. Court of appeals had ruled in Jones's case that the police were required to obtain a warrant before placing a GPS device on a suspect's vehicle.  This split of authority set up a confrontation that was ripe for resolution by the United States Supreme Court.  On November 11, 2011 we reported that the United States Supreme Court had heard oral arguments on the Jones case.  We reported that several of the justices indicated that they were skeptical of the government's position that a warrant was not needed.  The majority of the court agreed that in this specific case, which involves the placing of a GPS device on a suspects vehicle, a warrant was needed.  The majority reasoned that when the police placed the GPS device on Antoine Jones' vehicle, they had committed an illegal trespass and that the evidence obtained could not be used because the government had violated the law in order to obtain the information.  But what the Supreme Court did not answer was whether the public had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to electronic surveillance.  Nor did they discuss what the limits of that expectation of privacy are.  Justice Alito criticized the majority for "kicking the can down the road" by not discussing what the public's reasonable expectation of privacy was in their electronics.  At this point, it looks like the decision is limited to the placing of GPS devices on suspect's vehicles but still leaves open the question of whether our cell phones can be tracked, internet usage or even video surveillance of our movements in public can be monitored by the government without the need to obtain a warrant.  What can we do in private and how far can the government go in following us around and looking into what we do, who we talk to and where we go?

There is currently a case in the Federal District Court of Arizona that is being watched closely that could eventually make its way up to the United States Supreme Court.  This case involves the use of a cell phone tracking device called "stingray" to track suspects without their knowledge.  This device is used by the Defense Department.  A cell phone tower is set up to mimic an actual cell phone tower.  When a suspect's cell phone is turned on, the cell phone tower connects to the cell phone and it monitors the movements of the suspect.  The attorney for the suspect in the Arizona case asked for discovery to determine how this "stingray" system works and the FBI is refusing to disclose this information.  The FBI considers this device to be so critical and so important, that they fear that disclosing details about it would be dangerous to the public.  This issue is being litigated in the Arizona case and it could very well make its way all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.  

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on GPS Tracking Case

This week the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case which asks whether the police need to obtain a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on a suspect's vehicle.  We first reported on this case on August 6, 2010.  In 2005, Washington police placed a GPS tracking device on a vehicle owned by Antoine Jones, a Washington nightclub owner.  The used the GPS tracking device for a month and tied him to a drug stash house.  He was eventually arrested and convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine.  The GPS tracking device was just one facet of the investigation.  The government alleged that Jones ran a drug trafficking operation out of his nightclub.  The case involved surveillance of Jones and a wiretap of Jones' cell phone.  Jones was sentenced to life in prison.  His conviction was overturned by the Federal Court of Appeals who found that the placing of the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a warrant violated his 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  The government appealed the ruling arguing that the police have the right to place GPS tracking devices on suspect's vehicles without a warrant.  

During oral arguments this week, most of the justices seemed skeptical of the government's position.  The questioned the government's attorney and seemed leery of the government's position.

The case is United States v. Jones, 10-1259.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

FBI Sting Leads To 678 Arrests Across The Nation

A three month investigation lead by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has lead to the arrests of 678 people with alleged ties to the Mexican drug cartels.  322 of the people arrested had violent criminal histories.  The operation targeted foreign nationals from international gangs that deal with identity theft, fraud, weapons trafficking and drug dealing.  ICE claims that members of these international gangs have committed robberies, murders, assaults and rapes.  164 people were arrested for non drug related violations and immigration violations.  Law enforcement officials seized 86 guns, eight pounds of methamphetamine, 30 pounds of marijuana, one pound of cocaine, $70,000 in cash and two vehicles.  The operation involved at least 173 law enforcement agencies.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Disparities In Cocaine Sentences Finally To Be Reduced

This afternoon, President Obama will sign a bill into law that finally reduces the prison sentence disparities between rock cocaine and crack cocaine.  The decades old disparities resulted in the disproportionate incarceration of blacks.   Under the old law, possession of five grams of crack cocaine carries a mandatory minimum of five years in prison while it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the mandatory minimum five year prison sentence.  Studies show that crack cocaine is more likely to be found in black neighborhoods while powder cocaine is more likely to be found in white neighborhoods.  Under the new law, in order to trigger the mandatory minimum five year prison sentence, the amount of crack cocaine is increased to 28 grams while the amount of powder cocaine remains at 500 grams.  The disparity has been reduced from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1.  The new law also eliminates mandatory prison sentences for simple possession of crack cocaine.  

The battle to reduce the disparity between crack and powder cocaine has been a long time coming.  This disparity has been the subject of great criticism by Civil Rights leaders and became a campaign issue during the last presidential election.  As a candidate, President Obama expressed his desire to tackle this issue and pledged to support legislation to deal with this disparity.  Today, he gets to keep a campaign promise.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Two Arrested For Trying To Smuggle Drugs Into Cook County Jail

Two arrests, in unrelated incidents, were made of employees of Cook County Jail for trying to smuggle drugs into the jail. The first case involves a Sheriff's deputy who was working in Division 1.  The officer was taken into custody while working in Division 1.  Officers had received a tip that he had drugs on him.  The Officer struggled with officers as they tried to take him into custody.  Officers found marijuana in his boot and about 30 more grams of marijuana in the trunk of his car.  He was charged with Possession of Contraband in a Penal Institution, Possession of a Controlled Substance With Intent to Deliver, Resisting Arrest, Official Misconduct and Battery to a Police Officer.

The other case involved a teacher who worked at the York Alternative School, a school inside Cook County Jail that gives inmates the opportunity to finish school.  An undercover officer met the teacher off of the jail compound, gave him cocaine, and the teacher agreed to smuggle the cocaine into the jail the next day with his school supplies.  The school teacher was arrested as he drove away.

More information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Cocaine Disparity Only On-Fifth As Racist - Congrats Congress!

A backroom deal has been reached between the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate that does not completely eliminate the sentencing disparity between powder and rock cocaine.  Earlier today we reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would completely remove the sentencing disparity between rock and powder cocaine.  This afternoon, Senator Durbin announced that he has reached a "compromise" with Republican Jeff Sessions in which he agreed to accept a change to the bill that would replace the 100 to 1 disparity with a 20 to 1 disparity.  In return, Sessions agreed to withdraw his amendment to the bill that would have replaced the 5 year minimum for simple possession of crack with a 10 year minimum.  Session's amendment would have completely destroyed the bill.  In announcing the deal, Durbin stated that he believes in completely eliminating the disparity "but to get things done you have to be prepared to make mutual concessions."  So the 100 to 1 disparity is replaced by a 20 to 1 disparity.  Almost everyone agrees that the disparity between rock and powder cocaine, regardless of whether it is 100 to 1 or 20 to 1, is racist.  So while the old sentencing disparity was 100% racist, this new law will be one-fifth as racist as the old law.

This is another example of how broken our legislative process is.  This morning the entire Judiciary Committee agreed to completely eliminate the sentencing disparity.  A few hours later a backroom deal is struck in which the bill is reduced to a mockery.  While this new sentencing structure will be better than what we had before, why not do the right thing and completely fix the problem?  How could one racist Senator, or a group of racist Senators, be allowed to exert their will on the entire Senate?  When they try to do this, why not call them out for what they are and force them to explain themselves?  If we are a nation of laws, and we have a law that is blatantly racist, then what does that say about our country?

Please note that in 1986 Senator Sessions was nominated by President Reagan to serve as a Federal District Judge.  He became only the second nominee in 48 years for Federal District Judge to have his nomination killed by the Senate Judiciary Committee after evidence was introduced at his nomination hearing that indicated he had made racially insensitive comments while working at the U.S. Attorneys Office.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Senate Committee Approves Bill That Eliminates Cocaine Sentencing Disparities

Today the United States Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that would eliminate the sentencing disparities that exist between powder cocaine and crack cocaine.  The Fair Sentencing Act, sponsored by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, would increase the amount of crack cocaine needed to impose a mandatory trafficking prison term and eliminate the mandatory five year prison sentence for possession of crack cocaine.  In July of 2009, the House Judiciary Committee approved a similar bill.  The sentencing disparity between powder cocaine and crack cocaine has been the subject of much scrutiny and much criticism.  Crack cocaine offenders are more likely to be minorities whereas powder cocaine offenders are more likely to be Caucasian.   Yet, under current Federal Sentencing Guidelines, crack cocaine offenders are punished much more severely than powder cocaine offenders.  This fact has given rise to calls of racism.  Attorney General, Eric Holder, has called for Congress to remedy this disparity.  In 2008, roughly 3,000 inmates had their sentences reduced because of a retroactive change to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.  The fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the bill tells you something about how obvious the disparity is for a unanimous vote to be made under the current political climate.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-22-7295.

Obama Urged To Commute Excessive Crack Cocaine Sentence

President Barack Obama is being asked to commute the 27 year prison sentence of a woman charged with dealing crack cocaine.  The woman, Hamedah Hasan, formerly known as Stephanie Lomax, was convicted in 1993 for being involved in a multistate conspiracy to sell crack cocaine.  She had no prior criminal record.  She initially received a life sentence that was reduced to 27 years.  The trial judge reduced her sentence to 12 years but was overturned by the Court of Appeals.  If she had been convicted of dealing powder cocaine, she would have been released from prison a long time ago.  The Obama administration has been vocal in its criticism of the sentencing disparities between powder cocaine and crack cocaine.  The have even called upon Congress to take action on eliminating the disparity.  This case would seem to be a perfect example of the unfairness of the Sentencing Guidelines.  Critics of the Sentencing Guidelines are pleading with President Obama to step in and commute the prison sentence for Hasan.  President Obama, like Presidents Clinton and Bush, has not used his pardon power in his first year in office.  President Clinton ended up pardoning 396 people and commuted the sentences of 61 others.  President Bush ended up pardoning 189 people and commuting the sentences of 11 others, including "Scooter" Libby.  

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Stresses Importance Of Open Criminal Trials

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision stressing the importance of criminal trials being open to the public throughout all its stages.  A per curiam decision is one that is based on written pleadings without any oral arguments being heard.  The case involved Eric Presley, who was convicted of trafficking cocaine in Georgia.  He challenged his conviction on the basis that the public, namely his uncle, were excluded from the courtroom during the jury voir dire process.  The judge believed that there was not enough room in the courtroom and did not want his uncle sitting next to a juror and possibly tainting the jury.  The Georgia Supreme Court upheld the conviction but was divided on the issue.  The United States Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the trial court had an affirmative duty to seek alternatives to preserve the notion of open trials.  They stated that the public has a First Amendment right to have access to the court proceedings and the defendant had a Sixth Amendment right to a public jury selection.  The court held that "trial courts are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials."    They also stated that "the public has the right to be present whether or not any party has asserted the right."  The dissent, lead by Justice Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, criticized the majority for deciding the issue without hearing oral arguments.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

2 Local Men Charged With Plot To Kill Prosecutor And DEA Agent

Two DuPage County men were charged in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois with plotting to kill a federal prosecutor and a DEA agent.  Charged were Jack Mann of Naperville and Frank Caira of Downers Grove.  Apparently, Mann approached an ex-convicted convicted of murder and asked the ex-convict to kill the prosecutor and the DEA agent who were pursuing a drug case against Caira.  The understanding was that the price would be four kilograms of cocaine.  Mann apparently indicated that Caira would be doing the paying.  Mann appeared in court today and Caira is scheduled to appear on Thursday.  The case is being handled by prosecutors from Indiana.  The Illinois office has recused itself from the case.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

House Moves Forward With Bill Eliminating Disparities In Cocaine Sentences

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would eliminate sentencing disparities between powder cocaine and crack cocaine. The bill was approved by a vote of 16 to 9 and now moves the full House for its consideration. We have been reporting for a long time about this issue, such as the 100 to 1, crack to powder disparity. This disparity is unjust because it unfairly punishes African-American defendants who are more likely to be convicted of crack cocaine offenses than White offenders who are more likely to be arrested with powder cocaine. The current sentencing guidelines treat crack offenders much more harshly than powder cocaine offenders. In 2007, the U.S. Sentencing Commission amended the Sentencing Guidelines to fix this injustice and voted to give retroactive effect to those amendments. At least 3000 inmates have had their sentences reduced because of these sentencing amendments. Just last month, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder urged reform of the sentencing laws to deal with this disparity.

We will keep our readers updated on the progress of this legislation.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Attorney General Urges Changes In Cocaine Sentencing Guidelines

On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder called for reform of the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine. In an address before a symposium sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and Harvard Law School, Holder called for a thorough review of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines because of the "unwarranted" disparities between punishments for different forms of cocaine. Holder pointed out that the disparities in the way crack cocaine and powder cocaine are treated under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines erodes public trust and confidence in the justice system. In 2007 the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to give retroactive effect to an earlier sentencing guideline amendment that reduced crack cocaine penalties. A study by the U.S. Sentencing Commission from April 2008 reports that over 3,000 defendants convicted of crack cocaine offenses have had their sentences reduced under this amendment. The final decision on whether to reduce a defendants sentence rests with the sentencing judge.

For more information about the Chicago Criminal Defense Attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Rules Cell Phone Can't Turn Misdemeanor to Felony

The Supreme Court ruled that the government's interpretation of a statute to convert a misdemeanor to a felony was overly broad. The defendant had used a cell phone to set up the purchase of a misdemeanor amount of cocaine. The government argued that the defendant should be charged with a felony because they used a "communication facility" set up a drug transaction. A literal reading of 21 USC 843(b) made this into a felony. The Supreme Court rejected the governments interpretation of the statute because it was clearly not in line with Congress' intent when enacting the statute. The governments reading of the statute also conflicts with the classification of the drug itself as a misdemeanor. The majority opinion went on to point out the absurdity of the government's interpretation of the statute since it would expose the first time drug buyer using a phone "to punishment 12 times more severe than a purchase by a recidivist offender and 8 times more severe than the unauthorized possession of a drug by rapists."

The case is Abuelhawa v. U.S.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Obama Administration Will Seek To Change Sentences

The Obama administration will be asking Congress to change Federal Sentencing Laws that create a disparity in jail sentences for dealing crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. We have previously written about this disparity in sentencing guidelines. Lawyers call this a "100 to 1" ratio for cocaine sentences. This means that a person convicted of selling five grams of crack cocaine faces the same prison sentence as someone convicted of selling 500 grams of powder cocaine. Many lawyers feel that this unfairly punishes black offenders since 82 percent of the defendants convicted in federal court of selling crack cocaine were black, while only nine percent were white. President Obama frequently mentioned this disparity in sentencing guidelines while he was campaigning for President. Assistant Attorney General, Lanny Breuer testified before a Senate Committee yesterday and called for this sentencing disparity to be cured by Congress but did not spell out any details. However Bauer did call on Congress to fix the current law, which was originally written in 1986 during the height of concern over the spread of crack cocaine. Bauer stated that since 1986, prosecutors have developed a "refined understanding" of the differences between crack cocaine and powder cocaine.

It is extremely rare for a politician to call for a reduction in prison sentences. Politicians are especially concerned about being seen as being soft on crime. In addition to this issue, the Obama administration is seeking to increase drug treatment and rehabilitation programs for inmates once they are released from prison.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Allows Jailhouse Informant to Testify

The Supreme Court allowed a jailhouse informant to testify for impeachment purposes even though the statements made were illegally obtained. Donny Ray Ventris and Rhonda Theel were charged by Kansas prosecutors with the murder of Ernest Hicks. Theel pled guilty to robbery and agreed to testify against Ventris in exchange for having the murder charges dropped against her. At trial, Ventris testified that Theel was the shooter and was solely responsible for the murder. Police had placed a confidential informant in the jail cell next to Ventris when he was in custody after the murder. Ventris had told the confidential informant that he had shot Hicks in the head, stolen his wallet and $350 and taken his car. The state used the testimony of the confidential informant to impeach Ventris. Ventris was eventually convicted of Aggravated Robbery and Aggravated Burglary. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the testimony of the confidential informant could not be used because Ventris had not been read his Miranda warnings prior to being questioned by the state's confidential informant. The United States Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the testimony of the confidential informant could be used only for impeachment purposes. The Court ruled that the state could not use the informant's testimony in their case in chief, but only for impeachment purposes.

This was a 7 to 2 decision. The dissenting Justices were Stevens and Ginsburg.

The case is Kansas v. Ventris, 07-1356.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C. visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Traffic Stop Results in Big Drug Bust

The Daily Herald reports that a routine traffic stop by McClean County Sheriff's Office K9 unit of a motor home resulted in them finding 237 pounds of cocaine. The motor home was stopped in I-55 in central Illinois. The location of the stop was northeast of Normal, Illinois. The article states that the drugs were found in a concealed compartment of the vehicle. The drugs are worth between $2.1 million and $3.7 million.

You can view the actual article by clicking here.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense lawyers at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.